Received a Demand Letter? Get Immediate Defense Help →

Informational only — not legal advice. Data from public PACER/CourtListener records. Full disclaimer →

ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: An Online Entertainment Retailer

Case #NY-69882475 · District Court, S.D. New York · Filed April 11, 2025

Plaintiff's Firm: GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC

WCAG 2.0Missing Alt TextEmpty LinksInconsistent Page TitlesBroken Links

Case Summary

Plaintiff Cedric Bishop, a visually-impaired individual, has initiated a federal lawsuit against an online entertainment retailer, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act Title III, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. This action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 11, 2025, contends that the retailer's interactive website presents significant accessibility barriers, preventing blind and visually-impaired persons from fully accessing its products and services. Mr. Bishop asserts these impediments deny equal enjoyment of the website's offerings, including information on basketball equipment, collectibles, pricing, and policies.

The complaint meticulously outlines several specific Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) violations experienced by Plaintiff Bishop. These include a critical lack of alternative text ("alt-text") for graphical images and linked images, rendering visual content and interactive elements incomprehensible to screen readers. Further issues involve empty links that provide no textual description of their function, creating confusion for keyboard and screen-reader users, and redundant links leading to the same URL, which significantly hinders efficient navigation. Additionally, the website contained pages with identical title elements, preventing screen readers from distinguishing between different sections, and broken links that failed to communicate their inoperability, trapping users in unsearchable error pages.

Businesses operating online platforms face substantial legal exposure if their digital interfaces are not designed to be inclusively accessible. This case underscores the ongoing imperative for public accommodations to diligently adhere to established accessibility standards, such as WCAG 2.0. The failure to implement reasonable modifications for disabled users, encompassing everything from proper alt-text integration to logical navigation structures, can lead to costly injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and significant reputational harm. Organizations that maintain dynamic web content must institute robust, continuous accessibility policies and regular auditing to mitigate the risk of litigation and ensure equitable access for all consumers, regardless of their abilities.

Case Q&A

What accessibility issues were identified on the online platform?

The plaintiff encountered several accessibility barriers including the absence of alternative text for images, empty links lacking descriptive text, redundant links, linked images missing alt-text, identical title elements across different pages, and broken links that did not communicate their status to screen readers.

Who is bringing this legal action, and which law firm represents them?

The lawsuit is brought by Cedric Bishop, a visually-impaired individual, who is represented by the law firm Gottlieb & Associates PLLC.

What broader implications does this lawsuit have for online businesses?

This case highlights the ongoing legal requirement for all businesses with online presences to ensure their websites are fully accessible to individuals with disabilities, or face potential litigation under ADA Title III and related state laws, leading to demands for injunctive relief and damages.

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: An Online Entertainment R.... Ask me about the plaintiff's law firm, the specific WCAG violations at risk, or how to protect your business. I cite real lawsuit patterns — not generic advice.

Not legal advice — informational intelligence only.

TDARI is not a law firm. Responses are AI-generated intelligence, not legal advice. Disclaimer